New York Bans WHAT?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I was just joking. Thus the tongue sticking out emoji. Some of the phrases you've made could be taken as double entendres that are apropos to the thread at hand.

originally posted by: rickymouse
If a gay jerk starts harrassing someone he should not be able to sue someone who hits them because they hit them first. I knew a few gay girls that liked to start fights, and if they lost, they would have used the gay card because it is being used these days.

Gotta say that I can't see how this is an issue outside of some isolated incidents from a few bad eggs, but I can't imagine how this point requires any sort of widespread attention outside of an appeal to "both sides"-ism.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whoa, dude! In Texas of all places?

At least in that case the judge showed a little gumption and threw the book at him anyway. The jury does not set sentencing; the jury simply decides innocence or guilt.

I'm just amazed that any jury would accept this defense. As I said, against assault, sure. Against murder? Nope, sorry. Beat 'em about the head and shoulders, leave, and find someone with the right parts. No need to go 'round killing folks.

TheRedneck

a reply to: butcherguy

I didn't say this... you must be quoting someone else, or making it up.

He was quoting me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Six months jail time and 10 years probation is throwing the book at someone for murder?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I was just joking. Thus the tongue sticking out emoji. Some of the phrases you've made could be taken as double entendres that are apropos to the thread at hand.

I was thinking you were joking around.

I just realized that sex and violence are pretty tightly entwined in the language... the "jaw-jack" comment was actually an edit before I posted... I originally said "cold-cock" and realized that wasn't exactly a good idea...



TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's pretty disgusting. Here's a more comprehensive list of examples of this being used: Gay panic defense. It's wikipedia so I can't say how accurate they all are, but the list is quite long.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Six months jail time and 10 years probation is throwing the book at someone for murder?

It is if that is the maximum sentence. That's what "throwing the book at" someone means. The excerpt said six months was the maximum sentence.

All murder is not first-degree. I don't know what the circumstances surrounding that one were, except that I'm pretty sure it wasn't first-degree just due to the sentencing maximums. As far as that goes, I would think a life would be worth more than $11k too.

We do have some screwy laws in this country.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Just look at boxing. What do you fight for? The belt and the purse.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is... disturbing...

It sounds like this is mostly used to drop charge severity to a lower level, and at least some of the time isn't accepted. It is accepted some, though, and I think maybe due to that this kind of law could be a good thing. Someone brought up earlier should it be a defense to murder if a man isn't packing quite as much heat as he advertises, and while that is a bit hyperbolic, the principle is the same.

I will go out on a limb and say this: if this defense is so successful, it is the direct result of the very organizations that try so desperately to shock the public into allowing gay/trans discrimination laws. Most people don't give two shakes of a rat's tail, but when the perversions are waved in their faces, they start to. It's a part of the backlash I warned about over how the gay marriage issue was handled.

Some gay (or more properly, bisexual) folks need to understand how inherent sexual orientation is... attacking something that inherent is not a tactic that can win. I said much earlier in this thread that there should be some mention of the fact before things go too far... let the guy go on and find someone more to his liking and avoid the unpleasantries. You're not going to change a straight guy into a gay guy in ten minutes of conversation and vice versa.

Surprise me in the bedroom, and expect to have some facial features rearranged. Let me know over a drink before we leave and I'll likely be embarrassed, angry, confused... but I'm probably not going to let you beat my fist up with your face.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What an ass backwards state... Where I come from, murder is murder.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

There's a double-entendre in there somewhere, but I seem to have completely missed it...

TheRedneck

a reply to: LSU2018

Dude, it's the state that elected AOC... keep up.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

will go out on a limb and say this: if this defense is so successful, it is the direct result of the very organizations that try so desperately to shock the public into allowing gay/trans discrimination laws. Most people don't give two shakes of a rat's tail, but when the perversions are waved in their faces, they start to. It's a part of the backlash I warned about over how the gay marriage issue was handled.

As I said in my first post, these defenses ultimately extend from the diminished capacity argument of the Twinkie defense. So people have been trying to use similar defenses to justify the murder of homosexuals for decades.

This is not a modern phenomenon. It's only now that we recognize these defenses as being preposterous.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Looks like you were right, too. Sometimes it just takes me a few minutes to wrap my head around some of the idiocy in society. In my mind, everyone is equal in terms of worth and value under the law. We all have different likes and dislikes, desires, viewpoints, talents, abilities, but none of that matters when it comes to the law.

Call me an old foggie...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That sounds highly unfair and comes across as victim blaming. Like LGBT can't be themselves because people will murder them? That sounds AWFULLY unfair and a lot like victim blaming (It's her fault she was raped because of the clothes she was wearing).

Though if you look at the list I posted you'll find out that you are completely wrong about the history of this defense. The first example used in the list is from 1954. I'm going to go ahead and assume you are aware that the LGBT rights movement wasn't going on then and homosexuality was illegal in the country (Stonewall riots happened in 1969 for instance).

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Is it okay for a woman to beat/kill a man that lied about the size of his dick? Is it okay for a man to attack a woman that lied about her age? What about a woman that agreed to sleep with a man because he claimed he was rich but barely had a dime to his name?

Where do you draw the line on where it's acceptable to kill or viciously attack someone because they didn't tell you the whole truth?

what you mention isn't quite the same thing: Age, size or rich compared to being in the dark with someone and all of a sudden... like whoooa wha the snip. They would be getting some beats!

Just more special rules for a tiny percentage of people who just want to be "equal".

originally posted by: TheRedneck
If I were in a red light district and picked up a "woman" who later on turned out to be a man, yeah, I would probably go all redneck on their rear

That could have been worded a lot more judiciously, as it could have two distinctly differing meanings.

a reply to: Sillyolme

If it was that rare, then this ban was needless and no action was required on the part of New York to implement it.